Opinion
3:21-cv-00124-LRH-CLB
08-29-2023
CITY OF LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2, Defendant.
WALLACE & MILLSAP BY F. McClure Wallace, Esq. Patrick R. Millsap, Esq. BURNS CHAREST Warren Burns Korey A. Nelson Amanda Klevorn Patrick D. Murphree Counsel for Plaintiff CITY OF LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI DOTSON LAW BY Robert A. Dotson Justin C. Vance MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP David J. Fioccola Jessica Kaufman Counsel for Defendant
WALLACE & MILLSAP BY F. McClure Wallace, Esq. Patrick R. Millsap, Esq. BURNS CHAREST Warren Burns Korey A. Nelson Amanda Klevorn Patrick D. Murphree Counsel for Plaintiff CITY OF LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI
DOTSON LAW BY Robert A. Dotson Justin C. Vance MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP David J. Fioccola Jessica Kaufman Counsel for Defendant
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION CONTINUING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(SECOND REQUEST)
LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and 6-2, Plaintiff CITY OF LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 (“Defendant”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2022, the Court issued its Order [ECF No. 53] denying the motion by Defendant Cintas Corporation No. 2 (“Cintas”) under 9 U.S.C. §3 to stay this action pending arbitration (the “Order”);
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2022 Cintas filed its Notice of Appeal [ECF No. 59] from the Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §16(a)(1)(A);
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court's prior order and remanded the case;
WHEREAS, the parties subsequently agreed to discuss the potential for alternative dispute resolution in this matter;
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2023, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order Staying Proceedings Pending Potential Alternative Dispute Resolution (First Request) (the “Stay Order”) [ECF Nos. 77 & 78]. That order stayed this action for a period of ninety (90) days;
WHEREAS, the parties' discussions regarding the potential for alternative dispute resolution in this matter are progressing and have been productive and the parties are optimistic that an out-of-court resolution remains viable;
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2023, the ninety (90) day period set forth in the Stay Order will expire;
WHEREAS, the parties require additional time to continue discussing the potential for alternative dispute resolution in this matter; and
WHEREAS, the parties believe that a stay of this action for an additional period of no more than sixty (61) days following the expiration of the Stay Order on September 6, 2023 is appropriate and necessary to facilitate those further discussions and is in the interest of judicial economy and conservation of resources. This is the second such request;
NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE TO AN ORDER OF THE COURT AS FOLLOWS:
1. This action shall be stayed for a period of sixty-one (61) days from September 6, 2023 until November 6, 2023.
2. [In the alternative and if the Court is inclined] This action shall be stayed for a period of thirty (30) days from September 6, 2023, at which point the parties will submit an interim report to the Court regarding the status of the parties' discussions on alternative dispute resolution and, if appropriate, request an additional stay of this action if necessary to facilitate further discussions.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS ORDERED that this action shall be stayed for a period of sixty-one (61) days from September 6, 2023 until November 6, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.